I am not totally sure but I think it's maybe diaries, photos, newspapers, letters, witnesses etc..
Comparing and contrasting historical sources
Historians use primary sources, which are firsthand accounts or original documents from the time period being studied, and secondary sources, which are interpretations or analyses of primary sources by other historians. Both types of evidence are important in constructing an accurate and comprehensive understanding of historical events.
Comparing and contrasting historical sources
Historians use various sources of evidence such as primary documents, secondary sources, artifacts, and personal accounts to synthesize information. They analyze these sources critically to develop historical interpretations and draw conclusions about the past. By comparing and contrasting different sources, historians construct a coherent narrative to present a comprehensive understanding of historical events.
Historians analyze evidence by examining its reliability, relevance, and context. They assess the source of the evidence, its bias, and corroborating or contradictory evidence to form a well-supported interpretation of the past. Additionally, historians use critical thinking skills to evaluate the perspectives and motives of the sources providing the evidence.
Historians use primary sources such as documents and artifacts, secondary sources like books and articles, oral histories from witnesses, and archaeological evidence to find clues about the past.
Historical evidence.
Historians use corroboration, which involves cross-referencing multiple sources to confirm the accuracy of information, and contextualization, which involves placing evidence within its historical context to better understand its meaning and significance.
Primary sources, secondary sources, and oral history.
They compare and contrast the ideas from multiple resources
primary sources and secondary sources.
historians use primary soucres and secondary sources